babble is rabble.ca's discussion board but it's much more than that: it's an online community for folks who just won't shut up. It's a place to tell each other — and the world — what's up with our work and campaigns.

Hockey = anti-human rights

Comments

mark donnelly Canucks anthem singer is using his fame to try and destroy women's human rights. Canucks have shoddily tried to distance themselves from him but IMV they've got to be held accountable and remove him as their anthem singer.
maybe the NHL themselves need to be contacted...?
warning graphic images at link

Quote:

Mark Donnelly is an opera singer based out of Vancouver, but he's perhaps best-known as the Canadian anthem singer at Vancouver Canucks games. The tenor has been leading the Rogers Arena crowd in his stirring renditions of "O Canada" for years, and he's become a recognizable local figure for it. He's very closely linked to the team, listed on the Canucks' website under Game Entertaiment Performers and often touted as "Canucks anthem singer Mark Donnelly" in commercials and at other Vancouver events.
That in mind, one has to wonder how the team feels that their noted anthem singer has also decided to become closely associated with the New Abortion Caravan, a group of trucks with 7-foot tall and 22-foot long billboards adorned with graphic abortion imagery that will be driving across Canada beginning this week.
On Tuesday, he sang the anthem at their launch on the steps of the Vancouver Art Gallery:

as much as i disagree with him, on principle the idea of firing someone from a job for being politically active seems wrong. Also, he's the singer so perhaps a more appropriate thread title would be "Opera=anti human rights..."

milo and Sven, as hilarious as you both are finding the word-play in quizzical's thread, the issue of access to abortion for women is damn serious. Just because you both don't find it so, in the FEMINISM forum, doesn't mean it isn't.

This man is using his anthem-singing notariety and his celebrity to promote an anti-woman politics. While he may have the right to do so, we have the right to challenge him, in the FEMINISM forum, without men like you two coming in and making fun of our arguments and shitting on us.

i'm not shitting on or making fun of anyone maysie, i thought the thread title was misleading since the issue isn't hockey but an opera singer who is an anti abortion crusader.

i'm not saying we shouldn't question this guys involvment in anti abortion groups, and even boo him when he sings or whatever, but i do think it's a slippery slope kind of situation when we think he should be fired for this. according to the article he's "decided to become closely associated" with this group... well, what does that mean? it'd be one thing if he's the public face of an anti abortion campaign but the article doesn't outline what his close association means. i'm just saying that in a time where people who advocate for the environment are labelled "terrorists" and student protesters are called the same that if we start firing people for stuff they do outside of work if it has some political side to it, many people here are going to find themselves out of work, especially with things like employers going on social media etc.

if my boss sees a post where i link to a pro palestinian article on facebook or something i be fired for "supporting terrorists"? or if i donate to partners in health would that be seen as some kind of radical organization and grounds for dismissal?

Generally when you have a public association to an employer the law allows you to take some normal political views but not those of a scandalous nature. Some employment is even more directly an association of the personal with the employer and in that case if you damage the image you are selling as associated it is tantamount to a frustrated contract in value and damaging to boot.I think that for most workers there is little to no limit on what you can do but when what you are selling is your brand being associated with another brand that is something else. People have a choice as to whether they decide on a career that makes themselves a brand but if they do so and then sell that brand then I think it is difficult to back out of that. I think that part of being a celebrity (and it has a number of benefits) is the acceptance and responsibility of the personal association you are selling which is a major part of your commodity. Put another way, if it were not the fact that he is a celebrity we would not be talking about him at all and the media would not have reported on the story. It is unfair to suggest that his message has nothing to do with the Canucks when only because of his association with them are we even hearing about this.

Not all workers brand themselves and sell that brand. Few do. Those who do get paid well for their celebrity status and then face limits on what they do with that. For example, someone who shills on TV for Coke may have a contract that prevents them from shilling for Pepsi. And for anything else. Those who do not turn themselves into a brand and market that brand have no restriction but also tend to get less attention.

With respect to the actual content of his political stance I have an even harder view. I think this goes beyond a political position. To my mind he is inciting hate against women in general, those who champion the right to choose or exercise it and those who provide the services. People have been harmed and some killed connected to this hatred that he is inciting. I think that the message he is bringing is intended to offend, does offend and is scandalous by nature. Further it is one that harms people directly. In that case I could not see how his employer could have any obligation not to fire him. He has no right to impose that association on his employer unless they had previous knowledge of his intention prior to them contracting with him. In other words this recent demonstration of his was not part of the bargain of what he sold the Canucks.

The Canucks, however, may have a responsibility requiring a firing as well. They too are a brand that has been marketed. Other brands that advertise at their games are also implicated. I would happily support a boycott of those brands if the Canucks did not fire him. I would support someone demanding a refund on any Canucks-brand merchandise if they do not fire him. They not only damage and harm their own brand by not firing him (if they decided not to) but the brand of every company-- or even personal reputation of every individual that associates with them. For this reason you can see that they have a legal obligation to fire him.

Milo, since your position on this issue is quite clearly not appropriate for the feminist forum, I suggest you leave this topic to people who have more insight and the ability to apply feminist analysis. Goes for you too Sven.

I can add some agreement that the thread title is not actually fair-- as this just happened and hockey in general or the Canucks in particular have not had a choice or opportunity to respond. The thread title would only be fair if the Canucks did not fire this guy. Otherwise you could say that singing is anti-human rights. Fairly, Mark Donnely is anti human rights and for now that is far as that thread title should have gone. A little latitude for anger could be given but I don't think that a defence of the thread title is all that fair personally- assuming I have a right to comment on a thread title in this forum which I am not clear that I do. Nonetheless, I have taken the risk of making the comment hoping not to offend by doing so.

I do think it is fair to say the ball is in the court of the Canucks and the NHL as to whether they want to respond appropriately or make the thread title true. I don't think they have long to respond either.

Thanks Maysie and Unionist. This is a no-brainer. If Dickwad Donnelly were famous for being an opera singer and used that celebrity for promoting anti-choice views--and if opera had a long history of anti-feminist, anti-queer and racist tropes--it would indeed be fair to say that opera = anti-human rights. But that's not the case. It is with hockey.

I do think it is fair to say the ball is in the court of the Canucks and the NHL as to whether they want to respond appropriately or make the thread title true. I don't think they have long to respond either.

Canucks already responded by saying his "personal" beliefs aren't the Canucks. and that's why i brought it here. it's too little. i like your idea of boycotting other sponsors affiliated with Orca Bay and the NHL.

Thanks Maysie and Unionist. This is a no-brainer. If Dickwad Donnelly were famous for being an opera singer and used that celebrity for promoting anti-choice views--and if opera had a long history of anti-feminist, anti-queer and racist tropes--it would indeed be fair to say that opera = anti-human rights. But that's not the case. It is with hockey.

NDPP

'Dickwad'? Isn't that a rather sexist slur analgous to 'bitchwad'? Because I thought such things were of great importance here, best not use them, especially mods.

FYI, Mark Donnelly sang for Harper's election rally in Burnaby during the 2011 campaign. I was part of a group of protesters outside, and when Donnelly walked in I told him he should be ashamed of himself. His response: "We all want the Canucks to win."

Thanks Maysie and Unionist. This is a no-brainer. If Dickwad Donnelly were famous for being an opera singer and used that celebrity for promoting anti-choice views--and if opera had a long history of anti-feminist, anti-queer and racist tropes--it would indeed be fair to say that opera = anti-human rights. But that's not the case. It is with hockey.

NDPP

'Dickwad'? Isn't that a rather sexist slur analgous to 'bitchwad'? Because I thought such things were of great importance here, best not use them, especially mods.

When men are even remotely disadvantaged by such words, then yes, I suppose we could consider it sexist. And no, there is no accurate analogy between dickwad and bitchwad. One guy calling another guy a dick, or dickwad is a whole lot different than a man calling a woman a bitch, or bitchwad. You can't just pull words out of their context and compare them as if it were a level playing field. It isn't yet, and never has been.

mark donnelly Canucks anthem singer is using his fame to try and destroy women's human rights. Canucks have shoddily tried to distance themselves from him but IMV they've got to be held accountable and remove him as their anthem singer.

I agree totally that he is using the fame garnered from singing at hockey games to attack women's rights. I think protests the next time he is scheduled to sing would be appropriate but then I think that the loudmouthed lout on Coach's Corner should be tarred and feathered and run out of town on a rail for his shilling for imperialism.

Ok-- I did not know that the Canucks had responded. The reason I had suggested hockey would not be made to be the immediate association in this case was to give the Canucks the opportunity of firing him. Since they have already responded and said they would continue their association and think his personal beliefs (that are meaningless without the power of their association) are his own then I think something direct must be done. A protest here is not meaningful enough.

I suggest that letters get written to the hockey club and to the NHL saying enough is enough and that they must wear this as long as this person and these views are associated with them. the letter should be copied to any sponsor of the Canucks along with a message that as long as this guy sings for the Canucks their products and services will be boycott.

Maybe questionning the players themselves asking them if this is their position is another way to go.

However, can someone post a link to the Canucks stating that his opinion was his own business? -- I think we should get to read and respond to that. I could not find it and I think a boycott should be based either on a statement like that or a refusal to give a statement or whatever their actual position is.

to be honest after doing some searching on the web, since no links were provided here, i'm more inclined to agree with the idea of getting rid of him now.

not only was he front and centre in the launch of the "anti-abortion caravan" (a reference to the abortion caravan in the 70's) he is absolutely using his association with the canucks to give it legitimacy by actually singing the anthem at anti abortion events.

i guess what i'm worried about is that it's easy to say someone should be fired for their beliefs/actions when i disagree with them, but what happens when it's something i/we all support? i worry about this because i have a tendency to voice my opinions and get involved in activism, yet i still need to have a job and if my employer decides that my anti capitalist views, etc are "objectionable" or they see me in a pro palestine protest is that grounds for getting fired even if i'm voicing those opinions outside of work?

As per babble policy: "babble is NOT intended as a place where the basic and fundamental values of human rights, feminism, anti-racism and labour rights are to be debated or refought. Anyone who joins babble who indicates intentions to challenge these rights and principles may be seen as disruptive to the nature of the forum."

So, essentially, "pro life" advocates are not especially welcome. They are, of course, free to carry to term an unplanned pregnancy if they so choose -- that is what being pro choice is all about.

It also appears that babble members don't believe in freedom of expression or freedom of association. That is very obvious in the call to have this mans employment terminated because he "associates" with Pro-life/anti-abortionists.